End Poverty in South Asia
Syndicate content

sanitation

How Can We Innovate for Development of Sanitation?

Naomi Ahmad's picture

In Bangladesh, around 90% of the people have access to a toilet. But only a third of those toilets are hygienic, and the country loses about 6.3% of its GDP every year to inadequate sanitation.

Join an online discussion on Innovation for Development: Improving Sanitation in Bangladesh at the World Bank Bangladesh Facebook page. Through the online discussion, we hope to hear from YOU on how Bangladesh can use ICT and new technologies to better understand the challenges and address the problems of sanitation.

Have Collective Sanitation Achievements Been Sustained in Rural Bangladesh?

Craig Kullmann's picture

Poor sanitation has devastating—often overwhelming—consequences. As sanitation advocate Rose George writes in “Why there’s a Sanitation Crisis and What We Can Do About It,” the health, social, and economic toll is hard to overestimate. Research from the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program’s (WSP’s) ongoing Economic Impacts of Sanitation Initiative shows that inadequate sanitation costs developing economies from 1% to 7% equivalent of their GDP and that investments in increasing access to improved sanitation and hygiene are needed. These findings are based on research conducted in Southeast Asia and India (similar studies are in progress for Bangladesh, Pakistan, and countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Carribean).

A key to improving sanitation is learning how to work at scale and how to strengthen the sustainability of improved sanitation. WSP has been implementing large-scale learning projects to investigate both questions. One place to look for insight is in Bangladesh, where access to basic sanitation in rural areas has grown significantly since 2003, when the Government of Bangladesh formulated a national sanitation policy and strategy that has been implemented by local governments.

An Inclusive Approach to Safeguarding the Basic Needs of the Poor

Mark Ellery's picture

If it were possible to separate public services into a public good aspect and a private good aspect, then government could probably ensure better outcomes for the poor by focusing primarily on the public good aspect.

A public good is both non-rival (the consumption of a unit does not reduce the units available for others) and non-excludable (it is not possible to include some while excluding others from this good). For example an illiteracy free community is a pure public good that demonstrates both non excludable and non rival qualities. It is non-excludable as it is not possible to exclude someone from the benefits of an illiteracy free jurisdiction while including others; and non-rival as one person consuming an illiteracy free jurisdiction does not reduce the stores for others. The private good have both rival and excludable characteristics (the consumption of a unit reduces the availability for others and it is possible to include some while excluding others during consumption). Alternatively a school is a private good - it is rival (there are only a certain number of children you can fit in a classroom) and excludable (you can be excluded if you do not meet certain socio-economic standards).

Assuming that all public services have rival and non-rival, excludable and non-excludable characteristics, it should be conceptually possible to separate the public good aspect and the private good aspect.